DOCSLIB.ORG

Neoconservatism and American Foreign Policy Written by Stephen Mcglinchey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neoconservatism and American Foreign Policy Written by Stephen Mcglinchey Neoconservatism and American Foreign Policy Written by Stephen McGlinchey This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below. Neoconservatism and American Foreign Policy https://www.e-ir.info/2009/06/01/neo-conservatism-and-american-foreign-policy/ STEPHEN MCGLINCHEY, JUN 1 2009 Neoconservatism is something of a chimera in modern politics. For its opponents it is a distinct political movement that emphasizes the blending of military power with Wilsonian idealism (Mearsheimer 2005), yet for its supporters it is more of a ‘persuasion’ that individuals of many types drift into and out of (Kristol 1995: ix). Regardless of which paradigm is more correct, it is now widely accepted that the neoconservative impulse has been visible in modern American foreign policy, particularly within the George W. Bush administration, and that it has left a distinct impact. This article will first explore the neoconservative ideology as it applies to foreign policy, establishing the domestic foundations on which it was built. Secondly, examples of the implementation of neoconservative ideas into reality will then be analysed, most notably through the prosecution of the War on Terror, and the relationship between America and Israel. Finally, the article will assess whether after a change of administration in 2009, any of the neoconservative legacy remains alive in American politics. Neoconservatism Neoconservatism became a distinct ideology, or persuasion, in the aftermath of the cultural unrest and university riots in the late 1960’s America. A group of largely working class Jewish American intellectuals based in New York most notably, Irving Kristol, interpreted the situation as modern liberalism attacking its own foundations and moral integrity in favour of mass social revisionism. In Kristol’s own words; “Liberals were wrong, liberals are wrong, because they are liberals. What is wrong with liberalism is liberalism – a metaphysics and a mythology that is woefully blind to human and political reality” (Murray 2005: 45). That reality was that mankind is naturally evil. Socialism had failed, so the solution was the pursuit of a non secular liberal democracy that addressed the crisis of relativism (Murray 2005: 46-47). To paraphrase Allan Bloom, American minds had become so open that they had become closed (Bloom 1987: 337-339). The early neoconservatives sought to reorient domestic American politics by harnessing the ready-made moral foundations that religion provided, without necessarily being religious themselves and mould that together with Platonist ideology via the reading provided by Leo Strauss who is often cited as the ideological father of neoconservatism, although within the persuasion his influence is often downplayed (Murray 2005: 37). The use of religion was simply due to the fact that the Judeo-Christian moral package provided a clear sense of right and wrong that could be harnessed. Finding morality through secularist ideals would lead to moral bankruptcy, crime and underachievement (Kristol 1995: 365). In the true Platonic sense, the neoconservatives had realised what was best for America and they felt it their duty to steer the misguided populace, and later the world via neoconservative application in foreign policy, to their senses. Having found an identity in the domestic American political sphere, foreign policy postulates followed. Irving Kristol describes three central pillars; a strong idea of patriotism, a round rejection of anything resembling or pointing towards a world government, including round rejection of the United Nations and NATO – which were “on their way to becoming moribund” (Kristol 2003: 367), and finally the view that statesmen should clearly distinguish friends from enemies (Kristol 2003: 2). These pillars are fused with a strong Manichean morality that compels America to use its power for the common good rather than reserve it. This would become viscerally clear in Bush’s War on Terror, but it can be identified as far back as in the early Reagan and late Carter administrations according to Francis Fukuyama E-International Relations ISSN 2053-8626 Page 1/11 Neoconservatism and American Foreign Policy Written by Stephen McGlinchey (2006: 45). In direct opposition to the timely practice of realpolitik in foreign affairs, the foreign policy of a country must represent its internal moral character. Maintaining alliances with dictators and unfavourable regimes is therefore abhorrent to neoconservatism. Therefore, American power has been and could be used for ‘moral’ purposes. Iraq is the stock example in the contemporary era and highlights clearly through the practice ofregime change and democratisation, aided by interventionist military force, how neoconservatism applies to modern foreign policy. Neoconservatism holds the domestic and international sphere to a clear moral and ideological standard and champions the use of militarism to further that standard globally. It does not ignore soft power issues, but rather, “when your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails” (Fukuyama 2006: 63). Put more plainly, “the world is adrift, and for our safety it needs to be moored” (Murray 2005: 55). Neoconservatives believed at the turn of the century that they alone possessed the moral and ideological foundations to successfully orient international relations to the benefit of all and that the United States was blessed with the unique opportunity to prosecute such an endeavour: “Americans should understand that their support for American pre-eminence is as much a strike for international justice as any people is capable of making” (Kagan & Kristol 2000: 24). In the post Cold War era, neoconservatism identifies closely with The End of History? thesis (Fukuyama 1989). This presupposes that liberal democracy will spread globally in the wake of the West emerging triumphant in the Cold War, rendering all opposing political orientations obsolete. The support for democratisation and the spread of liberal institutions into non Western areas seems fairly conventional when applied alongside Kantian cosmopolitanism and Doyle’s ‘democratic peace thesis’, however it gets its distinctive neoconservative flavour when the use of interventionist military policies to effect democratisation of a certain target nation are used to effect and artificially accelerate that process. Indeed, it is the application of this strategy that has caused mass critique of the Bush foreign policy package in the post September 11th world. In 2006, writing on the War on Terror which he describes as “predominantly shaped by neoconservatives” (2006: 3), Francis Fukuyama abandoned his neoconservative persuasion and condemned the use of morality and ideology in foreign policy precisely because America has no remaining moral credibility in the Middle East as a result of past and present actions (2006: 187). That lack of credibility has demonstrably lowered American international standing and led to suspicion that the democratisation efforts are a veil for imperialism and a means to control access to the oil reserves of the Middle East, representing an essentially unchanged regional policy from that of the Cold War era. As the idea of democratisation has both predated and survived the neoconservative era of the Bush administration, justifiable suspicion remains regarding its legitimacy now that it has been tainted with the fallout from the War on Terror through its faltering applications in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Neoconservative ‘War on Terror’ The events of September 11th provided the opportunity for those with a neoconservative persuasion to gain prominence in the Bush administration as they were able to offer a ready-made logic with which to view the new post 9/11 era and point to a legacy of literature and ignored warnings of a dangerous future. For much of the 1990’s, neoconservative literature was proliferating in opposition to the New World Order of peace, offering the view that its peace was deceptive and America should use The Unipolar Moment (Krauthammer 1990) to create a unipolar era of unrivalled American power projected globally (Kagan 2002: 136-138). This school of thought, although a seemingly marginal position, is validated at least in part by many leading neo-liberal academics. John Ikenberry acknowledged that the global order is an American System based on the proviso that “the United States makes its power safe for the world and in return the world agrees to live within the American system” (Ikenberry 2001: 21). Krauthammer describes the American system more vividly: “unashamedly laying down the rules of world order and being prepared to enforce them” (Krauthammer 1990: 33). Both express no desire for this to change, but Ikenberry does contemplate the potential danger of the overzealous projection of American power recognising that “all this could go sour” (Ikenberry 2001: 31). The souring of this system is the moving away from the multilateral and inclusive posture of the elder Bush (Bush 1) and Clinton administrations towards the unilateral flavoured and confrontational nature of the George W. Bush administration. To depart momentarily into International Relations semantics, Michael Lind emphasizes the difference between E-International Relations ISSN 2053-8626 Page 2/11 Neoconservatism and American Foreign Policy Written by Stephen McGlinchey neoliberalinstitutionalism
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'The Anarchical Society and Climate Change' Robert Falkner
    ‘The Anarchical Society and Climate Change’ Robert Falkner in: The Anarchical Society at 40. Contemporary Challenges and Prospects, edited by Hidemi Suganami, Madeline Carr and Adam Humphreys (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 198- 215. INTRODUCTION Hedley Bull’s The Anarchical Society is the first English School text that addresses, albeit briefly, international environmental politics. Bull’s interest in environmental issues is motivated mainly by his desire to refute claims that ‘the states system is an obstacle to the attainment of man’s ecological objective of living in harmony with his environment’ (1977, 283). The book does not discuss climate change as such. Published in 1977, five years after the first UN environment conference but two years before the first World Climate Conference, The Anarchical Society conceives of environmental issues as a set of distinct problems that require international scientific cooperation and environmental management. By contrast, climate change has emerged today as an all-encompassing global ecological threat that requires the wholesale de-carbonization of the global economy. It is, as Hoffmann suggests, ‘perhaps the global challenge of modern times’ (2013, 3). Had Bull lived to observe the rise of international climate politics since the 1990s, would he have arrived at a different assessment of the environmental agenda? Would he still view global environmental politics through the same pluralist, state-centric, lens that is at the heart of The Anarchical Society? This essay offers a close reading of Bull’s classic text in an effort to apply his theoretical perspective to the international politics of climate change. My objective is to 1 explore what contribution pluralist English School theory can make to our understanding of how international society can respond to global warming, and what its limitations are.
    [Show full text]
  • Class on Hedley Bull 1. Some General Points About Bull's View a Central
    Class on Hedley Bull 1. Some general points about Bull’s view A central claim in Bull’s argument is that anarchy—understood as interaction between and among agents, whether individuals or states, in the absence of a state—is not a single thing with a determinate set of consequences. Even if we accept the Hobbesian thesis that a world of separate individuals interacting under conditions of anarchy lacks any order, there are still at least three forms of anarchy which work very differently from one another: (i) an anarchical community of the kind that we find within stateless societies, where order among clans and lineages groups, with partially overlapping competences, is preserved in part because of a high degree of cultural homogeneity and social solidarity, and the rules enforced by groups are understood as having religious or natural status and a special authority owing to that status form of special owing to are according to custom and tradition; (ii) an anarchical international system (anarchical state system) with a plurality of states and no element of society (as Hobbes thought of international society) or none that plays a consequential role, in which order is preserved through the separate states acting on their own interests and/or values and principles, and not on the basis of a sense of common interests or an understanding of being bound by common rules and institutions; (iii) an anarchical international society, in which order among states is maintained by the existence of an international society that does not operate in the shadow of the state: that is, by a sense of common or shared interests/values, and a sense of being bound by common rules and institutions (habits, practices, and organizations).
    [Show full text]
  • John J. Mearsheimer: an Offensive Realist Between Geopolitics and Power
    John J. Mearsheimer: an offensive realist between geopolitics and power Peter Toft Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Østerfarimagsgade 5, DK 1019 Copenhagen K, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected] With a number of controversial publications behind him and not least his book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, John J. Mearsheimer has firmly established himself as one of the leading contributors to the realist tradition in the study of international relations since Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics. Mearsheimer’s main innovation is his theory of ‘offensive realism’ that seeks to re-formulate Kenneth Waltz’s structural realist theory to explain from a struc- tural point of departure the sheer amount of international aggression, which may be hard to reconcile with Waltz’s more defensive realism. In this article, I focus on whether Mearsheimer succeeds in this endeavour. I argue that, despite certain weaknesses, Mearsheimer’s theoretical and empirical work represents an important addition to Waltz’s theory. Mearsheimer’s workis remarkablyclear and consistent and provides compelling answers to why, tragically, aggressive state strategies are a rational answer to life in the international system. Furthermore, Mearsheimer makes important additions to structural alliance theory and offers new important insights into the role of power and geography in world politics. Journal of International Relations and Development (2005) 8, 381–408. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800065 Keywords: great power politics; international security; John J. Mearsheimer; offensive realism; realism; security studies Introduction Dangerous security competition will inevitably re-emerge in post-Cold War Europe and Asia.1 International institutions cannot produce peace.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions
    Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Martin, Lisa L., and Beth A. Simmons. 1998. Theories and empirical studies of international institutions. International Organization 52(4): 729-757. Published Version http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002081898550734 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3382862 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Theoriesand EmpiricalStudies of International Institutions Lisa L.Martin and Beth A.Simmons Therole of internationalinstitutions has beencentral to thestudy of worldpolitics at leastsince the conclusion of WorldW ar II. Muchof thisresearch was, andcontinues tobe, pioneered in the pages of InternationalOrganization .Inthis article we take stockof pastwork on internationalinstitutions, trace the evolution of majorthemes inscholarship over time, and highlight areas for productivenew research. Our cen- tralargument is that research should increasingly turn to thequestion of howinstitu- tionsmatter in shaping the behavior of importantactors in world politics. New re- searchefforts shouldemphasize observable implications of alternative theories of institutions.W eadvocateapproaching international institutions as boththe object of strategicchoice and a constrainton actors’ behavior, an ideathat is familiarto schol- ars ofdomestic institutions but has been neglected in much of the debate between realistand institutionalist scholars of internationalrelations. Thearticle is organized into three major sections. The rst sectionprovides an analyticalreview of the development of studies of international institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Debate on American Hegemony
    The USS Vandegrift. (Credit: Expert Comment meunierd/Bigstockphoto.com) The debate on American hegemony Copyright © 2019 by Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute The right of Brian C. Schmidt to be identified as the author of this publication is hereby asserted. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views and opinions of the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute, its co-founders, or its staff members. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, please write to the publisher: Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute gGmbH Französische Straße 23 10117 Berlin Germany +49 30 209677900 [email protected] 1 Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute The debate on American hegemony Brian C. Schmidt Ian Clark is correct when he writes that “the present state of the ‘hegemony debate’ is, to say the least, confusing” (Clark, 2009, p.24). The aim of this paper is to provide some conceptual and theoretical clarity on the diverse means by which the field of International Relations (IR) understands the concept of hegemony. A secondary aim is to consider what these different theoretical accounts of hegemony have to say about the debate on American hegemony. After reviewing several different definitions of hegemony, I find that the concept embodies two main ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Analogy in Proposals for World Order, 1814-1945
    Domestic analogy in proposals for world order, 1814-1945: the transfer of legal and political principles from the domestic to the international sphere in thought on international law and relations HIDEMI SUGANAMI Thesis submitted for the Degree of Ph.D. The London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London 1985 2 ABSTRACT The ways in which legal and political principles obtaining within states can profitably be transferred to the relations of states are among the contentious issues in the study of international relations, and the term 'domestic analogy' is used to refer to the argument which supports such transfer. The 'domestic analogy' is analogical reasoning according to which the conditions of order between states are similar to those of order within them, and therefore those institutions which sustain order within states should be transferred to the international system. However, despite the apparent division among writers on international relations between those who favour this analogy and those who are critical of it, no clear analysis has so far been made as to precisely what types of proposal should be treated as exemplifying reliance on this analogy. The first aim of this thesis is to clarify the range and types of proposal this analogy entails. The thesis then examines the role the domestic analogy played in ideas about world order in the period between 1814 and 1945. Particular attention is paid to the influence of changing circumstances in the domestic and international spheres upon the manner and the extent of the use of this analogy. In addition to the ideas of major writers on international law and relations, the creation of the League of Nations and of the United Nations is also examined.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolving Spheres of International Justice the Evolving Spheres of International Justice
    The evolving spheres of international justice The evolving spheres of international justice ANDREW LINKLATER The Athenian position in the Melian dialogue that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must boldly expresses the realist theme that powerful states will not treat others equally if this seems likely to harm vital interests or jeopardize the balance of power. According to classical realism, justice (the idea that equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally) does not, and cannot, play a central role in the competitive world of inter- national politics. From that standpoint, what is true of states is just as true of the relations between individuals and groups within world society. Justice is principally a matter for the inner world of bounded communities; its role is marginal at best in their external relations.1 Two contrasting themes emerged in the 1970s in opposition to this doctrine. The first argued that order between old and new, former colonial and newly independent, states would be bolstered by redistributing power and wealth from the rich to the poor.2 The second argued that with the rise of inter- dependence the distinction between domestic and international relations is increasingly blurred and questions about who benefits from global arrangements inevitably raise justice considerations.3 These developments were the prelude to the more radical challenge to the realist dismissal of justice considerations which has emerged in the most recent phase of globalization. Globalization (the compression of time and space and the universalization of economic and social relations) has reinforced the critique of realism by encour- aging a rigorous analysis of equitable approaches to coping with global warming and ozone depletion.
    [Show full text]
  • Neo-Realism and State Power
    Prof. Andreas Bieler The Anarchy Problematique and Sovereignty: Neo-Realism and State Power ‘Any military commander, who is honest with himself, or with those he speaks to, will admit that he has made mistakes in the application of military power. He has killed people, unnecessarily, his own troops or other troops, through mistakes, through errors of judgement, a 100, or 1000, or tens of 1000, may be even 100000, but he has not destroyed nations’ (Robert S. McNamara in The Fog of War). This lecture deals with one of the dominant approaches in International Relations theory: (neo-) realism. The lecture is divided into three parts. Part I will focus on the historical emergence and key concepts of (neo-) realism. Part II will look at the empirical application of neo-realism by John Mearsheimer to European security after the Cold War, before Part III presents a range of theoretical criticisms of (neo-) realism. Most importantly, the latter will make the point that neo-realism is unable to explain structural change in world order. 1. (Neo-) Realism: Historically, realism emerged in response to liberal approaches. When the latter’s hope for a peaceful international order based on co-operation between democratic states organized through the League of Nations fell apart as a result of the rise of aggressive fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, the international situation characterized by war and the 1 struggle for survival was ripe for a new theoretical approach. The two key interventions were The Twenty Years’ Crisis by E.H. Carr in 1939 and Politics among Nations by Hans Morgenthau in 1948.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations As an American Scholarly Tradition
    Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations as an American Scholarly Tradition G. John Ikenberry The study of international relations (IR) is a worldwide pursuit with each country having its own theoretical orientations, preoccupations and debates. Beginning in the early twentieth century, the US created its own scholarly traditions of IR. Eventually, IR became an American social science with the US becoming the epicentre for a worldwide IR community engaged in a set of research programmes and theoretical debates. The discipline of IR emerged in the US at a time when it was the world’s most powerful state and a liberal great power caught in a struggle with illiberal rivals. This context ensured that the American theoretical debates would be built around both power and liberal ideals. Over the decades, the two grand projects of realism and liberalism struggled to define the agenda of IR in the US. These traditions have evolved as they attempted to make sense of contemporary developments, speak to strategic position of the US and its foreign policy, as well as deal with the changing fashions and stand- ards of social science. The rationalist formulations of realism and liberalism sparked reactions and constructivism has arisen to offer counterpoints to the rational choice theory. Keywords: International Relations Theory, Realism, Liberalism The study of International Relations (IR) is a worldwide pursuit but every country has its own theoretical orientations, preoccupations and debates. This is true for the American experience—and deeply so. Beginning in the early twentieth cen- tury, the US created its own scholarly traditions of IR.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revival of Carl Schmitt in International Relations: the Last Refuge of Critical Theorists?1 David Chandler
    © 2008 The Author(s) Millennium: Journal of International Studies Vol.37 No.1, pp. 27–48 ISSN 0305-8298; DOI: 10.1177/0305829808093729 http://mil.sagepub.com The Revival of Carl Schmitt in International Relations: The Last Refuge of Critical Theorists?1 David Chandler This article seeks to question the ‘critical’ readings of Carl Schmitt’s understanding of international law and the use of force in inter- national relations, particularly the approaches taken by many critical cosmopolitan theorists and many post-structuralists who have used Schmitt to distance themselves from, and to critique, American for- eign policy, especially under the Bush administrations. I suggest that these critical theorists engage in a highly idealized understanding of Schmitt, focusing on his contingent political conclusions, using his work descriptively rather than analytically. It is argued that the ideal- ist approach to Schmitt stems from these commentators’ concerns to describe their work as critical rather than from any attempt to use Schmitt’s underlying ontological framing of the relationship between law, ethics and the use of force to develop analytical insights into the practice and jurisprudence of the international sphere today. The revival of Schmitt in international relations therefore tells us more about the crisis of critical theorizing than the relevance of Schmitt’s analysis to today’s world. Keywords: Carl Schmitt, critical theorists, ontology Introduction: Reading Nomos der Erde The superficial nature of current uses of the work of Carl Schmitt, in substantiating critical approaches to the international sphere, is particu- larly apparent when he is used in relation to debates on humanitarian intervention and criticism of the global war against terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geostrategic Debate in the United States of America: the Place of Eurasia, the Western Hemisphere, and Mexico
    DOI 1022491/1809-3191.v24n2.p395-418 THE GEOSTRATEGIC DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THE PLACE OF EURASIA, THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, AND MEXICO Raphael Padula1 ABSTRACT The main objective of this study is to present the geostrategic debate on the power projection of the USA, from the perspective of its most relevant authors: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Samuel Huntington and Robert Kaplan. The argument is that such authors, although following premises of the Realistic School of International Relations, have shown different positions regarding the place of Eurasia and the Western Hemisphere, and particularly of Mexico, in the security and in the geostrategic actions of the United States of America. The study is based on books and original articles by the authors, and very marginally on interviews and secondary texts about the authors. Keywords: United States of America. Geopolitics. Security. 1 Doutor. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (COPPE - UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro - RJ, Brasil. E-mail: [email protected] R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 24, n. 2, p. 395-418. maio/agosto. 2018. 396 THE GEOSTRATEGIC DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTRODUCTION The geographic dimension has a central role in the strategic-related and foreign policy formulation of the United States of America. What would be the fundamental relations for the USA in terms of geographic axis? Would it be the North-South axis, which points to the priority of US relations with the Western Hemisphere (America)? The main objective of this study is to present the geostrategic debate on the power projection of the USA, from the perspective of its most relevant authors: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Samuel Huntington and Robert Kaplan.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of Hegemony in International Relations: Ontology and Social
    Hegemony and international relations Article (Accepted Version) Antoniades, Andreas (2018) Hegemony and international relations. International Politics, 55 (5). pp. 595-611. ISSN 1384-5748 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/70470/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk A VERSION OF THIS PAPER IS FORTCOMING IN THE JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL POLITICS HEGEMONY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Andreas Antoniades Senior Lecturer in Global Political Economy Department of International Relations University of Sussex Brighton BN1 9SN, UK Tel: +44 (0)1273 872875 Email: [email protected] Abstract The paper interrogates the current state-of-the-art in hegemony analysis in International Relations (IR).
    [Show full text]